The Commissionwill consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1, 2007.1362X (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1145 MARKET STREET- south side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 3702 - Section 309 Determination of Compliance to replace the existing copper cupola roof feature with a glass roof that would increase the height of this element by three feet at the top of this thirteen story office building. The project site is within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and a 120-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Proposed for Continuance to February 21, 2008)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

2. 2007.0305C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

1042-1046 POST STREET-north side between Polk and Larkin Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0692 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a large institution (Community Youth Center) over 2000 square feet which will occupy the entire subject building. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. This site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 130-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Proposed for Continuance to February 21, 2008)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

3. 2007.0781D(E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

14 VALENCIA STREET-west side between McCoppin and Market Street, in Assessor's Block 3503, Lot 003 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.0615.4005 for the property at 14 Valencia Street (aka 1745-1755 Market Street), to maintain the operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary, d.b.a. Ketama Cooperative. The subject building is a four-story mixed-use building with 51-dwelling units, all within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, the Market Street Special Sign District and a 105-E Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to February 21, 2008)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

4. 2007.1211D(C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE-west side between 23rd Street and 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 4211 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application number 2007.05.21.1784, proposing to add a third story with a flat roof, a 3-story horizontal expansion in the rear, and two additional dwelling units to an existing 2-story single-family home in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Plans as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 7, 2008)

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as submitted

(Proposed for Continuance to February 21, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

[No name stated]

- Confirmed the request for continuance to February 28, 2008

ACTION: Continued to February 28, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

5. 2001.1398(D. Alumbaugh: (415) 558-6601)

TreasureIsland. Informational Presentation on the Treasure Island Development Plan-Staff of the Mayor's Office andrepresentatives from Treasure Island Community Development, LLCwill give an informational presentation on the status and content of the development plan for Treasure Island.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational only, no action requested.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 24, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 27, 2008)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

6. 2005.1066E(D. LEWIS: (415) 575-9095)

2800 SLOAT BOULEVARD- north side of Sloat, between 46th and 47th Avenues, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2515 - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project proposing the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and a 34-space parking lot, and the construction of three new mixed-use, five-story, 60-foot-tall buildings totaling approximately 120,000 gross square feet (gsf). The project would include 56 dwelling units, approximately 23,000 gsf of ground-floor commercial uses, and 93 off-street parking spaces. The three existing commercial buildings on the project site proposed for demolition include a retail shop (Aqua Surf Shop), restaurant/café (John's Ocean Beach Café), and a motel (Robert's Motel). The project site is within the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and a 100-A height and bulk district.

. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

- I have received phone calls and correspondence from a number of people who were involved in the Market – Octavia Plan with a general concern that an action is being contemplated by the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors in regards to revisions to the Plan.

- I would hope that we would be able to stay with the plan because it took many years to formulate and it addresses parking, housing and the compromise from a number of different parties.

Commissioner Moore

- Asked Mr. Badiner [Zoning Administrator] what enforcement actions we have for properties that intentionally are blighting neighborhoods from neglect of properties; with food being dumped in the entry of the property, clothes, graffiti, etc.?

- There are two properties in my neighborhood that I am very concerned about. One is the church on Clay and Larkin Streets and the other one is 1285 Sutter Street, which is inviting the same type of behavior.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- The City does not have a blighting ordinance. These would probably be dealt with by DPW [Department of Public Works].

- I believe it is being looked into again by Ed Lee, the City's Administrator. We are seriously considering a blighting ordinance.

Commissioner Moore

Commissioner Sugaya

- Secondly, in this morning's paper there was an article on one of the Port's sea lots that is up for development. And at some point [I'd like staff to] work with the Port staff and have an informational presentation.

John Rahaim, Director

- There is a selection committee that I am sitting on for the selection of the developer and architect for that property.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

John Rahaim, Director

- As I mentioned last time, I have been trying to be more organized in our response on the Action List.

- I would like to propose that we talk about that in the conversation that we will have in two weeks on the rules and procedures and talk about more specific strategies of how to respond to that more formally.

- Before that meeting, I am going to ask staff to update the status of those items and make sure that we can get that to you before that meeting.

- The second item: it has come up a few times -- the issue of the design quality of buildings you are seeing and how to try to address some of that and perhaps find ways that get projects to you in a better shape.

- Commissioner Moore suggested that I might make a presentation to the Commission of some of the work that we did in Seattle in this regard and I am happy to do that.

- There are some particular projects in the 40-47 story range which is a very common building type happening in neighborhood-commercial districts in Seattle that have design review guidelines that apply to those buildings.

- I think there are some good design principles that came out of those projects that can be applied.

Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner

- I did inquire of Ted Eagan's Office about the economic assessment of Supervisor Ammiano's legislation in the Mission on restricting fast food stores. He is working on a report and it would be ready by the end of next week.

9. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

Anmarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee

that would prohibit tourist hotel conversion into condominiums. Supervisor Peskin introduced amendments to the original ordinance based on this Commission's recommendations. Due to his modifications, it was continued to February 25.

. Plan Zoning Map Amendments as well as Planning Code Amendments. Primary focus on amendments that were drafted by Supervisors Mirkarimi, Peskin and McGoldrick:

b.Amendments that would affect the CAC, giving that body more authority to review private development projects.

c.Codifying the historic preservation interim policies that were adopted by the Commission.

d.Changing the 2-bedroom requirement to 30%- 2-bedroom and 10%-3-bedroom.

This Commission requested a brief on this initiative. It would do three things to encourage larger inclusionary housing units: change the density controls, allow developments to extend an additional 10 feet into the rear yard setback across the City, and prioritize the review of projects which provide these larger size family units.

[Reported the impact affect of this initiative]

Introductions

A- Ordinance extending the date line for Medical Cannabis Dispensaries from March 1st, 2008 to January 21st, 2009.

B- Urgency Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Sandoval that would impose an interim moratorium on enterprises that sell tobacco.

D- Resolution was introduced by Supervisor Dufty honoring Marge Gambelin for her dedication and work to the Planning Department.

E- Resolution of intent that the City of San Francisco not take enforcement action against Medical Cannabis Dispensaries that have properly applied for their permit before August of last year.

F- Motion by Supervisor Peskin on his nomination of Christina Olague to the Planning Commission ending on July 1, 2012.

G- Planning Department proposal on how to review demolitions.

Scott Sanchez

Board of Appeals

We took the enforcement legislation for comments and extended an invitation to perform an informational briefing at any time if they request it.

b.Sought to remove the requirement for a court reporter.

c.It was suggested by a member of the public that permit holders submit 10 copies of approved plans within 10 days.

d.The Board requested that the Department review and evaluate the standards that we have for materials that we send to them in response to an appeal being filed. We would give them a presentation on February 10 describing the standards that we have.

B-490 BayshoreRehearing request. There was no new information to grant a rehearing.Denied

C-9 Douglass StreetContinued because an appeal was filed to the Board of Supervisors on the CEQA evaluation for the project.

Addendum

(Tape IA; IB) (S. SANCHEZ: (415) 558-6326)

STATUS REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR THE ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY- Informational Only

SPEAKER(S)

Mike Ferro

- Thanked the Commission for visiting the Flower Mart and taking this whole situation seriously.

Patricia Vaughey

- You should freeze anything that the Academy is doing until they correct the errors.

Patrick McCann

- We need to have a clear understanding of what is going to happen after March 1 because they do not have a permit but they keep pressing of dividing the market.

Jeff

- We sent a letter to the Academy asking them to meet with us and try to find a solution. We are still waiting.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational item

D. GENERALPUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKER(S)

Patricia Vaughey

- The Flower Mart is not just a flower shop.

- Requested that the Director meet with Marina Cow Hollow Association concerning the domestic plan for Lombard Street. What things have been done to improve the streetscape and architectural continuity of the neighborhood?

Nick Pagalatos, Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

- We are waiting for this process to have an ending.

- We are waiting to see what the calendar is going to be like for the decision making and have residents fully engage in that.

Eric Quezada, Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

- We want to participate fully in a structural ending of this process and have some consensus to increase affordability and protect businesses.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

107 LOBOS STREET- south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 049 in Assessor's Block 7104 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of the replacement building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No.2006.11.01.6566, to construct a one-story over garage and basement, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new building permit.

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved new replacement building

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Olague

11. 2007.1371C(S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

844 CLEMENT STREET- north side between 9th and 10th Avenues; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1424 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 186.1(c)(3) and 303 of the Planning Code to legalize the conversion of a full-service restaurant (dba House of Clay Pot) to a small self-service restaurant (dba Napoleon Bakery & Restaurant , primarily selling Asian inspired cakes and pastries) within the Inner Clement Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The small self-service restaurant, with approximately 900 square feet of floor area, consists of a preparation/serving area, kitchen, restroom, and dining area with seating for six persons. The proposal will not involve tenant improvements to the existing commercial space or an expansion to the existing building envelope.

FY2008-09 Budget Proposal: review of detailed budget, work program and performance measures- Informational only

SPEAKER(S)

Paul Wermer

- One item on the budget that was missing in previous years is that there is a mandated review of the status every two years for Neighbor Commercial Districts.

- It would be very beneficial if there was a budget for this for the Department to comply with the Code and meet neighborhood needs in understanding what is going on, or if it is an unrealistic item, perhaps the language in the legislation should be revised.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational item

13. 2007.1095C(Tapes IB; IIA)(S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

2040 FILLMORE STREET- east side between California and Pine Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 0653 -Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 703.4, 303(c), and 303(i) of the Planning Code to establish a Formula Retail Use in the Upper Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.The proposal is to convert a vacant retail sales establishment(previously occupied by Smith & Hawken ) to another retail sales establishment (dba Ralph Lauren , an apparel, and accessories store). The proposed retail store is considered a Formula Retail Use under Section 703.3 of the Planning Code.The proposal will involve tenant improvements to the existing commercial space with new partitions and merchandise display areas and exterior modifications to the storefront with new windows and doors. There will be no expansion of the existing building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

John Hogan, Project Sponsor

- We are proposing a new façade. We try to make each project individual to the particular neighborhood and environment.

- We tried engaging the public as much as we could.

Anita Jean Denz

- Requested that the conditions proposed be changed to specify that all deliveries be made by 7a.m.

(-)Margot Parke

- We do not want the Fillmore District to turn into another formula retail district.

(-)Paul Wermer

- The larger spaces are becoming formula retailers and that is changing the character of the neighborhood. There needs to be space for neighborhood serving businesses.

(-)Carol Brownson

- Small shops on the Fillmore are an anchor to the quality of neighborhood serving retail shops.

(-)Dairo Romero

- We are proud of having a unique and diverse city. These big companies should go to the big shopping malls and not to the neighborhoods.

(-)Jaime Trejo

- As a native San Franciscan, I enjoy small businesses and this project is going to have impacts on the neighborhood and the whole city.

(-)Alice Piccus

- Small shop owners support community during fundraisings. Large retailers don't.

(-)Thomas Reynolds

- We opposed conditional use for chain stores on Fillmore Street and are asking you to help maintain the uniqueness of our neighborhood and help to regain some of what we have lost.

ACTION: Intent to disapprove. Final action on March 6, 2008

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

14. 2007.0827C(Tape IIA; IIB) (a. ben-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

1760 Polk Street-east side between Clay and Washington Streets, Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0620 -Request for Conditional Use Authorization to add a full bar use to an existing full-service restaurant (d.b.a. La Parrilla Grill .) No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed nor any interior modifications. The bar use will require a type 47 ABC license which allows sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises, in conjunction with a bona fide eating establishment. This site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 24, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Marsha Garland, Project Sponsor Representative

- The intention is to operate as a full service restaurant all day long with no separate bar service.

- We have tried to meet several times with the opponents but it was always in the attack mode and not really a dialogue.

(-)John Gallagher, Police Department

- Recommended denial of this license because the district is oversaturated and they are coming from outside.

(+)Rita Alviar

- Spoke in support because the owner owns another location on Folsom Street and it is clean and does not create any problems in the neighborhood.

(+)Michael Flore, Manager

- I understand the neighborhood is worried because they do not want this to become a bar. This proposal would only be to have a drink with the meal. This is something that many of our customers have requested.

(+)Stefano Cassolato

- Urged to approve the project with the modification of 10 p.m.

(+)Carl Hilsz

- Spoke in support to have a drink to compliment the meal and the majority of alcohol services up to 10p.m.

(-)Kimberly Bryant

- Concerned that the place is dark and there is already a large mass of bars on that corner.

(-)Michael Schoolnik

- Concerned that there would be a tremendous concentration of alcohol in the area that is a striving residential neighborhood.

(-)Frank Cannata

- This neighborhood is oversaturated with liquor licenses and adding to it would not help the quality of life to this neighborhood.

(-)Wylie Adams

- This business is not viable and this decision is going to impact our neighborhood.

(-)Kirstin Williams

- I want businesses along the corridor that support a healthy, safe and livable neighborhood.

(+)Mei Wong

- Troubles are not coming from restaurants with a liquor license but from bars operating until 2a.m.

(+)Dan Allara

- This is a family restaurant and closing at 10 p.m. would control a lot of sort of the bad element people are concerned with.

(+)Gigi Jangchang

- There are very comfortable restaurants and I support the idea of having small businesses with divers cultures in the area.

(+)Edward Alkhasor

- This is a family restaurant and people come to enjoy the food and leave before 10 p.m.

(+)Allan Martinez

- Spoke in support because it represents the diverse culture in the city.

(+)Aleksander

- This restaurant is clean, safe and has a calm environment for people to have a sophisticated meal with a drink.

(+)[No name stated]

- This is a nice restaurant with affordable prices and good food.

(+)Roberto Guitron

- As a business owner, I know that people want to have a meal with a drink. That improves the business a lot.

(+)Gennadiy Pinichasa

- Supported the business because it is good food with affordable prices.

(+)Marina

- They have sophisticated food with good prices. he only thing missing is the traditional Latino drinks - and not to get drunk - but to compliment the meal.

(+)Erick Arguello

- La Parrilla Grill is a member of our association on 24th Street and we have never had any problems with them.

(+)Michael Nulty

- We need to have businesses that are viable and they have to have the tools to be viable.

(+)John Nulty

- Requested approval of the conditional use for this business.

(-)Dawn Trennert

- Unusual notification process that they used with the poster saying that the hearing was in June and the mailing happened this week.

- The plan described verbally contradicts stipulations in Exhibit A of the proposed conditional use.

Vladimir Abramon, Owner

- I have a Masters Degree in Business and I know how to develop a business plan. We did research before opening the restaurant and we do have a plan.

- We met with associations and many people support this conditional use.

ACTION: Approved with the request for a report from the Police Department in 6 months.

507 Columbus Avenue- west side between Union and Green Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0117 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a retail wine store and a bar (dba Vino Divino ) of approximately 807 square feet within the vacant, existing ground-floor commercial space. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. The bar portion of the proposal is intended to be a wine bar which will sell beer and wine for consumption on-site with the retail wine store portion of the business selling beer and wine for consumption off-site. This site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Ahmad Larizadeh, Project Sponsor

- We support small businesses in this area but seems like you are not.

- We do not need a liquor license. We only need wine testing.

Marsha Garland

- I contacted a friend who is an expert on the ABC law and I have a copy of his definition of the 42 license.

- I think the confusion is that The Planning Department defines wine testing type 42 with a certain set of words that includes bars. But in reality, does not include wine testing rooms.

- We have a petition with 172 signatures from people in the neighborhood and businesses supporting this application.

- The neighbors are asking for this business because the lot has been vacant for a long time.

- This is for a wine tasting room.

(+)Stefano Cassolato

- This is going to be a place for people wanting to buy a bottle of wine and having a lot of education regarding the purchase. They will be using the sense of taste.

(-)Joan Wood

- Read portion of a letter from the President of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers previously submitted to the Commission opposing this application.

(+)Lynn Jefferson

- We have a lot of vacancies in North Beach and we might have more. This is a tasting room and it is not becoming a bar.

(+)Jalal Heydari

- It is not our intention to become a bar, but to offer customers the opportunity to sample the product.

(+)Carl Hilsz

- There are a lot of vacant stores and this is a viable business that can occupy that site and provide additional revenues to benefit the community.

ACTION: After public hearing, continued to March 13, 2008 for new plans.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

Item 16 was taken out of order and followed item 17

16a. 2004.0914CV(Tape IIA) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

793 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE- the northeast corner of South Van Ness Avenue and 19th Street; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 3591 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.1, 710.11 and 303 to allow construction on a site that exceeds 4,999 square feet in size, and under Planning Code Sections 228.3 and 303 to allow the conversion of a gasoline service station to another use, within the NC-1 (Neighborhood, Commercial Cluster) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District and the proposed Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area. The project also includes a request to allow a modification of the rear yard requirement in Neighborhood Commercial Districts, pursuant to Planning Code Section 134(e).A reduction in the parking requirement may also be considered pursuant to Planning Code Section 161(J). The proposal is to demolish the vacant gas filling station and construct a 50-foot, five-story mixed-use building dwelling units.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 7, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Tuia Catalano, Project Sponsor Representative

- This site was purchased in late 2004. The project sponsor has put together a great infill project compatible with the neighborhood that includes many of the features and components that the City is looking for in projects like this.

- The variance would allow us a better ground floor plan with more retail and the ability to provide more usable open space elsewhere in the project.

- The project is complaint with the current Code and is consistent with other City policies.

- This project includes family housing with two or more bedrooms, affordable units on site, PDR uses, neighborhood serving retail uses, and sufficient parking to satisfy needs.

- This is an excellent opportunity to develop an underutilized lot.

- There have been four neighborhood notifications and we are not aware of any opposition to the project.

(+)Philip Lesser

- It is a wonderful project for this part of the Mission District with schools, City College, and playgrounds nearby bringing in more families.

(-)Sue Hestor

- Questioned if this is really going to be for families with the open space on the 5th floor.

- The project should be compared with what the median income, household size, and family size is in the Mission.

Jaime Trejo

- If this is approved, you should question the size of the condominiums and determine if it is possible to increase the BMR [Below Market Rate] units.

ACTION: Approved with condition that Project Sponsor work with staff and Commissioner Moore on the design.

793 South Van Ness Avenue- the northeast corner of South Van Ness Avenue and 19th Street, Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 3591 -Request for a rear yard modification pursuant to Planning Code Section134(e) to allow a modification of the rear yard requirement in Neighborhood Commercial Districts. In this case the 25 percent rear yard would be from the second story and above.

658-666 SHOTWELL STREET- west side between 20th and 21st Streets, Lot 062 in Assessor's Block 3611 - Request for a Parking Variancepursuant to Planning Code Section 151, the project proposes the addition of eight (8) new beds to the existing residential care facility and requires one new off-street parking space, none are proposed, all within the RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 17a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 785 to establish the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict and to amend Section 703.3 to prohibit formula retail uses in the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict [Board File No. 07-1561].Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Ammiano amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 785 to establish the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; amending Section 703.3 to prohibit formula retail uses in the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; amending Sectional Maps SU 07 and SU 11 of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to establish the boundaries of the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; adopting finding, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 7, 2007)

SPEAKER(S)

Pilar Chavo, Supervisor Ammiano's Office

- We heard the concerns, suggestions and recommendations from the Planning Department and made changes on this legislation and introduced a substitute piece of legislation last Tuesday at the Board of Supervisors.

- One of them was to address some of the discrepancies between the legislation and the map that Planning issued.

- We still have some questions about some of the outer layers that were on the map and the planning notice.

- Some of the blocks and lots that it said were included in the legislation were not, but there were some missing ones. We need a little clean up on that.

- We also heard the recommendation to make the change to allow formula retail to replace itself if they have existed during the three years prior to the effective date of the legislation.

- The other change that we considered was amending to eliminate the quarter mile non conforming use requirement. We consulted with the City Attorney who suggested that it is not necessary to specify in the language regarding that requirement.

- However, in an effort to prevent misinterpretation in the future and be consistent, Supervisor [Ammiano] is happy to make that change as well.

- The Commission was concerned about having more time until having the Economic Impact. The report is coming out today or tomorrow or early next week. The Supervisor is happy to give a two week extension to consider that report and to include the changes in the legislation.

- Supervisor Ammiano has been concerned that chain stores would encroach in the Mission and Bernal Districts raising rents and displacing small local merchants. This legislation's intent is to protect small independent merchants.

- After talking to about 250 merchants only three of them opposed this legislation.

(-)Anita Correa

- This would be a proposed ban with no outreach to the merchant groups who would be the most affected.

(+)Joanne Wong-Lam

- Supports the Planning Department's recommendations that would help determining the financial feasibility of the amendment and to ensure that there is no decrease in community services.

(-)Richard Ventura

- Thanked the Commission for extending the comment period and encouraged having all the data before making any recommendation.

- Concerned about protection of existing businesses that are valuable in serving the community.

(-)Claudia Castillo

- Our organization, San Francisco Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, was not approached or consulted prior to the introduction of this ordinance to contribute relevant feedback especially this one that would impact tremendously our community.

(-)[No name stated]

- We are very concerned that we were not notified to represent our community regarding this legislation because it is going to impact small businesses.

(-)Rick Gomez

- We need to have the right formula retail to serve the community on what the community needs. This is going in a bad direction.

(-)Judith Berkowitz

- I urge you to send this proposed legislation back to the Board of Supervisors with a strong recommendation for disapproval because no extra special restrictions should be invoked.

(-)Rita Alviar

- The people in the Mission District did not have an opportunity to give any feedback, and property owners were not even included in this discussion.

Erick Arguello

- The general consensus is in support of the ban along 24th Street but not on Mission Street because there we have retailers that cater to the working class.

(-)David Blatteis

- By passing this law, you are going to be closing up the possibilities of bringing new kinds of businesses that we do not even know that they exist. This is going to affect retailers that provide true services to the community.

(-)Philip Lesser

- We could do much better than what we currently have because we have many store fronts vacant.

Fred Snyder

- I am constantly amazed with the process that takes place because the Eastern Neighborhoods is not really in place and we keep going forward. No businesses can come if they do not know what is going to happen.

Jaime Trejo

- There are not that many vacant store fronts because many are under construction and many serve the community in the afternoons or evenings.

(-)Debra Niemann

- Concerned about the impact that this ban is going to have in the community because this is not the best way to control growth and expansion.

(+)Fenny Kuo

- People want the opportunity to develop a neighborhood there, but I'd rather see more resources given to the community that already exists with growth to the businesses locally owned.

Jordanna Thigpen

(+)Kimberly Alvarenga

- Spoke in support of this legislation because protecting small businesses would present more and ample opportunities for working class in San Francisco as well as maintaining affordable rents for local business owners.

(-)Gillian Gillet

- This legislation removes competition, flexibility and local choice from the Mission.

(-)Kelton Finney

- This legislation is completely unnecessary because the requirement for conditional use provides a sufficient level of review.

(-)Amy Sullivan

- Opposes this legislation because a lot of formula retail provides union jobs with medical insurance in the Mission District.

(-)Laura Muniz

- This legislation would have severe consequences that cannot be reversed easily.

(+)Paul Johnson

- Spoke in favor of the modifications because they are well considered and clear.

(-)James Nunemacher

- We were never contacted about this legislation and I oppose it because it is going to cut out potential future businesses of many kinds coming to the Mission.

(-)Marie Sorenson

- I urge you to send this back to the Board of Supervisors with a strong recommendation for disapproval because there would not be any more retail formula uses.

(-)Colleen Meharry

- We were not contacted about this and we have to be able to use our common sense on what should be there and what should not.

(-)Eloise Bates

- The scope of this is huge and there has not been public input or proper process.

(-)Michael Miller

- Read a letter from Toby Livy opposing this legislation because residents should be able to do most of the shopping within the neighborhood.

Steve Vettel

- Staff's recommendation to stick to the conditional use process is appropriate.

- I ask you to consider a reasonable grandfather clause in the ordinance if you are thinking to recommend approval.

John Mendoza

- Many people signed the petition for approval without really being informed.

Kate

- This is going to be a big mess and I do not understand how you are going to maintain the flavor of the neighborhood and the reason why people live there.

(+)Dario Romero

- Many merchants in the Mission are in support of this legislation and I asked people to come to this Commission and share their opinions.

(-)J.J.

- This is going to take away the ability to consider projects on a case-by-case basis, giving the public the opportunity to express concerns and support.

ACTION: After public hearing, continued to February 28, 2008 [place early on the calendar]

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

20. 2007.1430D(Tape IVB)(C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

101 ARBOR & 102 CONRAD STREETS - between Conrad Street and Swiss Avenue; Lot 047 and 048 (formerly lot 039) in Assessor's Block 7553 - Request forDiscretionary Review of Building Permit Application#200702073648 to construct a new single-family dwelling, pending the approval of Demolition Permit #200702073649, to demolish the existing single-family residence at 101 Arbor and approval of Building Permit #200702073645 to construct a new single-family residence at 102 Conrad Street, within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 7, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

John Larkin, Discretionary Review Requestor

- The engineer studies regarding the demolition made the remarkable statement that buildings last only 100 years and that the house does not have historical value.

- The proposed house would be one of the largest in Glen Park.

- There are only two reasons to have such house: vanity and to split it up in multiple units.

- Consider scaling it down for a more humanly single family dwelling without the absolute temptation to become a multiple family dwelling unit.

(-)Steve Taylor

- The property to be demolished is over 100 years old and the historic review of this property states that the building exhibits specific examples of historic character.

(-)Maureen McKeown

- Opposes the project because the new house would forever destroy the look and feel of our neighborhood. It is out of character.

Dave O'Dunver, Project Sponsor

- We intend to move into one of the units and reside there. We also intend to sell the second dwelling unit to help out with the mortgage.

- Four neighbors sent letters in support and some others are here to give testimony of support.

Ernie Selander, Architect

- Historic evaluator and soundness report engineer are here to respond to any questions.

- We met with the neighborhood and modified the project taking into consideration all the concerns brought to our attention.

- The scale and density are completely compatible with the neighborhood and has no impact on the Larkin's home.

Robert McCarthy

- The house has two faulty support systems and two illegal units. It needs to be replaced and this family is just trying to stay in the City.

(+)Eugene Keegan

- Urged the Commission to approve the project because it is good to support family housing.

(+)Charlie Robinson

- This is a big improvement to the neighborhood.

(+)Peter Branngan

- This is just trying to create two family housing to allow families to stay in Glen Park

(+)Kathleen McDonagh

- This project of two single homes is going to make a big difference in the neighborhood.

(+)Kelton Finney

- I wrote the soundness report and cataloged all deficiencies explaining in detail how this building meets the criteria of an unsound building and will be happy to answer questions about the report.

(+)Tim Kelly

- The project would be a good one for the neighborhood. From a professional point of view, people tend to be attached to old buildings and see historic value where it is not present.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved requiring Project Sponsor to continue working with staff on the window design.

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

21. 2007.1434D(Tape IVB) (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

1906 20th Street- north side between De Haro and Carolina Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 4071 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.06.19.4368, proposing to add a 3rd floor, flat roof addition on the front half of the existing single-family home in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Low Density) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve As Submitted

SPEAKER(S)

Michael Krumbitz, Discretionary Review Requestor

- I believe that this new floor would diminish the value of my property.

- I understand that view is not protected but I'm asking that financial impacts be taken into consideration.

Brian Fox, Project Designer

- Any vertical addition would create the same conflict for the requestor because of view blockage.

- We have letters of support from neighbors.

- We tried from the outset to design a proposal with the greatest chance of approval with the support of the neighbors.

- We made changes to address neighbors' concerns and took into consideration staff's recommendations.

- [Showed photographs of the area to prove that the project is within the character of the neighborhood]

- The project is reasonable and measures have been taken to reduce the height to compact the mass as much as possible.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague and Moore

G.PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

SPEAKER(S)

None

Adjournment: 10:58 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 22, 2008.

Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department's website or in other public documents.